I don't see that circualr reasoning. It seems like she is saying more like

Point A that S is attributing to R (that Ruth doesn't even quantify as her only attribute to being a person worthy of public trust)

& 2nd sentence that bolsters Point A's main point.

R: P > VE

S: construes R as VE > P > WPT

I am struggling with my personal statement. Would love for some people to read it over. Please add me!

Im happy to help

All good, we can work together to make it better!

I'm going to get above 165 on the October 2021 LSAT!

thanks all

Hey, does anyone know how to make your ProctorU stop "bouncing"on Macbook whenever a proctor swaps with another Proctor? It is very distracting

One thing I'm not understanding about this AC

Dad chimp receives affection from son chimp, never displays affection back, but dad chimp willing to defend son chimp

Dad chimp gives affection to mom chimp(= to human role), also willing to defend mom chimp.

Why do they sometimes have to reciprocate?

#help

Same thought #help

But I want to add on, we have to make assumptions about what is "more likely"

felt the exact same. They said bats that bite are rare, but if they all start getting rabies, it def isn't as rare anymore and the justification to get rid of them all increases

I'm also wondering the same thing about paper. If my experimental section is another set of LG, Ima need hella paper lol

You don't per say ignore it, but it is not relevant in making the conclusion valid. I think this goes into a quick thought about A).

I feel like if people picked A) they were trying to link the first sentence and wrapping "more money its author blah blah" and "desire to make money."

These are two separate ideas.

I read this muchhhhh differently than the explanation. I read the conclusion as "dev. is not adversely affecting wildlife existing in the park" meaning, the development isn't causing any negative repercussions to the wildlife existing in the park.

C) talks about animals not in the park, these are animals coming from outside the park.

A) no migration mentioned, so try to get that out of your head. Bolsters the survey that quantity of animals IN THE PARK increased.

Does this make sense or am I reading this in a very wrong direction?

#help

That's what it seems like based off the video, but wouldn't mind a confirmation. #help

If anyone is still confused basically the argument is a SOME NOT(refuse to support publicly = not support publicly) & D is saying Not all(some do not) support publicly. So its just the same sentence but the not all carries the negation

also feel like A) is very broad. "Never been found anywhere" centuries ago or like from then until the modern era?

It's been a while since I took this PT, and I didn't understand the question even after having reviewed it a few times, but I think I have it after really breaking down the conclusion and premise.

I think it's best to start with the conclusion and then work your way backward.

All consuming hobby not succesful strat for overcoming loneliness ect

BECAUSE

X

So, I think the important thing to put together, is why is the conclusion so focused on all-consuming hobbies not being successful strategies? Well because it runs the risk of increasing loneliness. That is the key bridge that B is hitting on. We don't want to run the potential risk of increasing loneliness and you don't want to focus on the friend's bit.

I eliminated everything but D) pretty quickly but here's why it is wrong. "something generally more successful" what do we define as more successful from a not successful strategy? If not success to success is 0-100 is more successful a 20?

Key mistake I made when I took the PT: my immediate thought after reading the Q was, oh they will eventually lose their interest in the hobby, but that doesn't have to be the assumption at all. The assumption is sort of about risk management. If you want to overcome adolescent loneliness, you pick a strategy that doesn't have a risk of increasing loneliness.

@Future to add on, I'd also avoid D because it hones in on something we sort of already know. Glosomus has a unique UV light structure, so of course, that means they are going to attract flies more than the synthetic ones. That is in cohesion with the conclusion, but it doesn't do anything for the support itself.

Hey Monkey,

I have a similar challenge that I am working on(160 avg 170+ BR). Maybe we should collab and have a short discussion about the source of the challenges are and we may be able to resolution solve together?

Send me a PM if interested.

Super late to the party, but in case someone else sees this. This is a slight misunderstanding of what the stimulus mentions. "invariably" they eat more real food without N5.

I'm just not quite seeing the answer for 21)

E) complexity - very clearly mentioned in PA line 1,

Passage B is not so straightforward. I see two possible trains of thought.

1. elaborate > build-up of emotions leads to resolution of emotions, which can lead to "relaxation." That's in paragraph 1

2. In the last paragraph, it directly references complexity. "A trained listener will have a greater preference (for certain preferable emotions), for complex melodies...

So, I'm not quite seeing the positive emotional part of it? #help